I think the commit that got reverted did fix this bug :
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=566846
But the commit below does not, as there are several other places where
the PixbufImageSurface constructor is called before checking if the
pixbuf is null.
The above bug has a patch that adds those checks. It's a bit tedious,
but no API changes. Let me know if it's OK.
PS : In those commits e-mails, shouldn't the Reply-To be set to
banshee-list ?
--
Bertrand Lorentz <bertrand lorentz gmail com>
> http://flickr.com/photos/bl8/ <
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 23:26 -0400, Aaron Bockover wrote:
> commit 4dfd38cb169b2813b4eab66f5ac7ff088c125d20
> Author: Aaron Bockover <abockover novell com>
> Date: Fri May 29 23:28:10 2009 -0400
>
> [ArtworkManager] Check pixbuf.Handle before using the Pixbuf
>
> This commit solves the same problem as the commit that broke
> existing API and introduced awkward API that provided a false
> sense of security: 07edaeff263b2c74d38758d48ac0102e987c1f1b
> ---
> .../Banshee.Collection.Gui/ArtworkManager.cs | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/Core/Banshee.ThickClient/Banshee.Collection.Gui/ArtworkManager.cs b/src/Core/Banshee.ThickClient/Banshee.Collection.Gui/ArtworkManager.cs
> index 0c2941a..86fef23 100644
> --- a/src/Core/Banshee.ThickClient/Banshee.Collection.Gui/ArtworkManager.cs
> +++ b/src/Core/Banshee.ThickClient/Banshee.Collection.Gui/ArtworkManager.cs
> @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ namespace Banshee.Collection.Gui
> }
>
> Pixbuf pixbuf = LookupScalePixbuf (id, size);
> - if (pixbuf == null) {
> + if (pixbuf == null || pixbuf.Handle == IntPtr.Zero) {
> return null;
> }
>
> _______________________________________________
> SVN-commits-list mailing list (read only)
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-commits-list
>
> Want to limit the commits to a few modules? Go to above URL, log in to edit your options and select the modules ('topics') you want.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part